Apple releases iTunes 10.5.3 with iBooks 2 textbook syncing

iTunes 10.5.3 was released by Apple on Thursday, bringing support for the new iBooks 2 application for iOS and allowing users to sync their textbook purchases.

The new version of iTunes is available for download direct from Apple. It is a 102.15MB installer for Mac OS X, 66.11MB for Windows 32-bit, and 67.98MB for Windows 64-bit.

"iTunes 10.5.3 allows you to sync interactive textbooks to your iPad," Apple's description reads. "These Multi-Touch textbooks are available for purchase from the iTunes Store on your Mac or from the iBookstore included with iBooks 2 on your iPad."

The release of iTunes 10.5.3 comes as Apple on Thursday launched the new iBooks 2 for iPad. The major focus of iBooks 2 are new digital titles for education that Apple hopes will reinvent the textbook.

Apple's e-textbooks are much less expensive than their paper-based counterparts, priced at $14.99 or less from major publishers like McGraw Hill, Pearson, and DK Publishing. The digital titles are interactive and allow students and teachers new functionality like videos, slideshows and multiple-choice quizzes.

The creation of iBooks for iPad has also been greatly simplified with Apple's new iBooks Author tool for Mac OS X. The new, free software available on the Mac App Store can take a file like a Word document and turn it into text formatted for iBooks 2.

It's a Universal Binary. The OS X version supports two processor architectures: x86 (Intel) and PowerPC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddy

iTunes is still a fat binary since it has to support PPC.

But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison. I bet supporting SL and Lion features accounts for more of a difference. Overall I think the Mac app is bigger because it's bigger*.

* Meaningless tautology for the win.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

What we need is a true iTunes redesign for iTunes 11 in the spirit of iMovie '08, QuickTime X, and Final Cut Pro X. Then we can finally drop PowerPC support entirely.

Well I doubt that will happen--unfortunetely, because they won't do what they probably should do. i.e. split iTunes into smaller apps ala iOS (except for movies, and then add DVD support to iTunes), stick all apps in the appstore, and sync everything with a dedicated syncing app.

Because they must support Windows machines, it's easier to write one program that syncs almost anything.

Though if we are talking about hypothetical re-writes, I have another to add to the list: Why doesn't itunes store its various media types in the dedicated folders in the home directory? This seems like a no-brainer.....

Summer '09 Macbook 6 GB RAM, SSD; iPhone 3GS, aTV v.2

Jesus told her, I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Anyone who lives in me and [trusts]...

But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison.

Actually they do roughly double the size of an app.

Nothing can be shared between the two binaries because PowerPC and Intel use completely different CPU instruction sets (which is what application binaries are composed of), so you have two entirely unique binaries. The size of each may not be exactly the same, but it's usually pretty close.

Sorry, just to be clear, you can share image files (resources) between the two binaries, but it's usually the executable itself which is the largest part (especially in something as big as iTunes).

Nothing can be shared between the two binaries because PowerPC and Intel use completely different CPU instruction sets (which is what application binaries are composed of), so you have two entirely unique binaries. The size of each may not be exactly the same, but it's usually pretty close.

Sorry, just to be clear, you can share image files (resources) between the two binaries, but it's usually the executable itself which is the largest part (especially in something as big as iTunes).

1) You say that it double double the app and nothing is shared but then do state what I stated.

2) iTunes 10.5.2 is 185MB. The executable is only 56MB, less than 1/3 of the total file size. The resources folder containing images and localizations is 114MB, over double the size of the executable. Now if you remove the PPC code you end up with a executable about 1/2 the size as it was, but you only reduce your 185MB iTunes app by about 23MB. That is NOT half the size of the app. That is NOT the largest part of the app. You can't just exclude all parts of the app that are not the executable if they are in the .app package. They are part of the app!

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

1) You say that it double double the app and nothing is shared but then do state what I stated.

You weren't clear about the difference between executable code and images. I was clarifying that (and thinking aloud as I went).

Quote:

2) iTunes 10.5.2 is 185MB. The executable is only 56MB, less than 1/3 of the total file size. The resources folder containing images and localizations is 114MB, over double the size of the executable. Now if you remove the PPC code you end up with a executable about 1/2 the size as it was, but you only reduce your 185MB iTunes app by about 23MB. That is NOT half the size of the app. That is NOT the largest part of the app. You can't just exclude all parts of the app that are not the executable if they are in the .app package. They are part of the app!

I hadn't had a chance to open up the installer to see what it contained yet, so I was going off of my typical experience where the binary parts (main executable + utility programs) are usually bigger than the images and other resources (NIB files and whatnot). I guess iTunes is different.

I'd assume that the Windows version would need the same images, so then I have no idea why the Mac version is twice the size. More localizations? More functionality (which requires more images)? Higher res images?

"But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison."

In comparison to what? Humpback whales? Clearly.

Why is this so hard? In comparison to the size of the APP. I even went to the trouble of detailing the size of the app and various components in an earlier reply to you and you're saying you have no idea that I was comparing the size of the binaries to the app yet you failed to note that you didn't understand that earlier???

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Why is this so hard? In comparison to the size of the APP. I even went to the trouble of detailing the size of the app and various components in an earlier reply to you and you're saying you have no idea that I was comparing the size of the binaries to the app yet you failed to note that you didn't understand that earlier???

I'm pointing out what was said in your very first post, which is what I originally responded to with details about the difference between binary files and images. After which you detailed all of the components of the application bundle, and derided me for not somehow seeing that was in your mind when you made the first post.

If you would have posted those details in the first place, I would have accepted your argument and not bothered to clarify anything. But instead I now find myself battling revisionist history...

(Edit: the miscommunication here is over the term 'app', which I interpret as 'application', or any piece of software which can be run. There are plenty of 'apps' on Mac OS X which don't have 'application bundles'. That's why the comparison of the binary to the 'app' wasn't the same in my mind.)

I'm pointing out what was said in your very first post, which is what I originally responded to with details about the difference between binary files and images. After which you detailed all of the components of the application bundle, and derided me for not somehow seeing that was in your mind when you made the first post.

If you would have posted those details in the first place, I would have accepted your argument and not bothered to clarify anything. But instead I now find myself battling revisionist history...

1) I was clear when I wrote BINARIES and APP. You didn't read clearly enough, accept it.

2) It was after I dissected the parts of the iTunes app because you failed to understand that you then made an asinine comment about humpback whales. The context should be clear to all native English speakers but if you had an issue you should have inquired as to the meaning instead of claiming that binaries are half the size of the app. Now you're just backpedaling because you failed to comprehend the difference between a binary and the Mac OS X app.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Too bad this update didn't address the iOS 5 and iTunes wireless syncing error bug. . It's starting to get very annoying (unsure if it's an iTunes or iOS bug). I get about 10-20 a day (because 4 devices sync wirelessly).

Now you're just backpedaling because you failed to comprehend the difference between a binary and the Mac OS X app.

There is no difference for a lot of Mac OS X apps. Launch /Applications/Utilities/Terminal and type:

ls /usr/bin

There's about 500 Mac OS X apps in that folder which are just binary files. For those apps, the binary file _is_ the app.

This is why I like to make the distinction clear between an app and an application bundle. Because, when I think about apps, I think about all types of applications I've used (not just Mac OS X application bundles).

Theres been a bug for a while where it fails up unpack the iTunes extras videos properly and so bonus content is seemedly missing when running iTunes extras (bought in a recent version of iTunes). Does anyone have the problem and do thy know if it has been fixed in version 10.5.3. Thanks.